Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

unclefestering Blog

  • I'm not dead. Am I?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Dead Man  (1995)

     

    Dead Man stars Johnny Depp as a mild mannered accountant who travels to a western company town in the 1880s and after a series of altercations, he is running from the law while he is slowly dying. I have to say that this movie is a very different experience than the usual Jim Jarmusch series of sporadically connected episodes. Here he tells a fairly linear story. So your enjoyment of this movie might hinge on your opinion of what to expect of Jarmusch and of a Western.

    Johnny Depp is great in this very restrained role the character has his own quirks, but these serve to illuminate the charter, rather than build the character. He is William Blake, who has come to the town of Machine for an accounting job, but when he gets there, finds out that it is already filled. He gets into an argument with the boss of the company and town (Robert Mitchum), who throws Blake out of his office at gun point. Blake goes to drown his sorrows in the local bar and meeting the town whore. After a quick tangle, her boyfriend (Gabriel Byrne) bursts into the room in an unholy rage. A shoot out ensues leaving the hooker and her boyfriend dead and Blake gravely wounded.

    Blake is hunted by the local lawmen and townspeople. He travels into the wilderness with only an Indian named Nobody as his companion. Nobody thinks Blake is the reincarnation of the romantic poet.

    Jarmusch doesn’t present the Old West in a romantic light. With his usual, deliberate pace, Jarmusch debunks the myths of the Old West as a place of independence and freedom. The stark subject matter is lightened in places by Jarmusch’s sense of humor, but it is a much darker movie than his usual wont.

    The stark black and white cinematography plays beautifully in this movie. The thousands of shades of gray that pop on the screen bring attention to the grittiness of both the town and the countryside. Both are stark and in their own ways beautiful. It is well scored by Neil Young. The electric guitar grunge builds into a haunting melody that conveys the starkness of this vision of the west. Both those elements heighten this movie experience.

    Jarmusch is also well served by a number of well known actors. In addition to Depp and Mitchum, who adds an incredible sense of menace in his few scenes, Gabriel Byrne, Lance Hendricksen, Albert Molina, Steve Buscemi  and Billy Bob Thornton all turn in extremely strong performances.

    Another place where this movie departs from Jarmusch’s usual style is its graphic use of violence. The squeamish should be aware that Jarmusch doesn’t shy away from showing violence, and its consequences as well as the causal way that many of the characters seem to be unaware of just how disturbing their actions are.

    The deliberate pace and Jarmusch’s in experience with telling a linear story sometimes show as this movie has a tendency to drag in several places during its 2 hour running time.


  • You are so good you made the Mathmos vomit!

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Barbarella  (1968)

    On Golden Pond  (1981)

    Monster-in-Law  (2005)

    Barbarella often get knocked for being a bad movie as if it was supposed to be taken seriously. The movie is a campy, sci-fi, sex romp that takes equal shots at the conventions of both the 60s Sci-Fi and sex romp films. Don’t take it seriously. You probably shouldn’t watch it sober, but it is worth watching for the wide-eyed innocent wantonness that Jane Fonda manages to project in the lead role.

    Now first off, I’ve never really been a fan of Jane Fonda’s acting ability. She single-handedly wrecks On Golden Pond, and is shrill and unfunny in Monster-in-Law. Fonda’s limited acting abilities actually work for her in this movie. Her then soon to be ex-husband, Roger Vadim, didn’t ask for her to do deep method acting, but used her stilted line delivery to his advantage. He also uses the hammy performances of the other actors to the movies advantage. Barbarella walks a very fine balance of camp and crap and slips on each side at points along the way, but manages to keep that balance for much of the movie.

    The plot doesn’t really make much sense and is really only an excuse to get Barbarella from one psychedelic set piece to the surreal next one. Milo O’Shea plays Durand Durand, a scientist who has left Earth for a distant planet where they will let him build the ultimate weapon. Barbarella is sent by the president of Earth to bring him back. She crash lands on the planet Lythion and is attacked by tiny toy doll robots with snapping jaws that manage only to destroy her clothes (a common occurrence in this movie). She is rescued by a hunter who, after they have sex, takes her to meet Professor Ping, who along with all the other good people are slowlybeing turned to stone. Ping sends Barbarella onto the evil city of Sogo with a blind angel. There she meets the Great Dictator, the ineffective resistance leader and Durand Durand.

    The climax comes (so to speak) when she is put into a giant orgasm-inducing organ (the musical kind) to be pleasured to death.

    This movie is truly a product of its times. It hasn’t aged well from the perspective of fashions and style. It is all done in high 1960s counter culture psychedelia. Despite this, there is a certain charm to the unique visual style that feeds into the humorous aspects of this movie. For example, Barbarella's spaceship has the exterior design of a beach toy and the interior decoration of the Playboy mansion. (You'll never see anything like this in Star Trek!)

    Many people complain that the movie is antifeminist because Jane Fonda spends a lot of the movie with little clothing on and what clothes she does manage to wear are equally parts ridiculous and revealing.

    What I find truly revolutionary is that the movie celebrates women’s sensuality. Barbarella never pays any kind of moralistic price for enjoying sex. In fact, her enjoyment of sex is what saves her in the end. Also she is able to defeat the villains of the movie without any real help from the men who constantly surround her in this movie.


  • I was the star of The Will Show

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    About a Boy  (2002)

     

    About a Boy is often tagged as a comedy, which is a shame. After a couple of funny scenes in the beginning the movie settles into a deeper look into the stalled lives of two boys. One a 12-year-old whose mother works to keep him sheltered from the world and prevents him from becoming a teenager and the other a 36-year-old loner who never learned to become an adult.

    This isn’t to say that there aren’t funny scenes throughout the movie. There are plenty of them.: almost all the restaurant scenes, when Will has to explain how he makes a living, and in part the big show at the finale. But these are touching funny moments; not the laugh until you cry “Best Comedy of the Year!” moments promised by the DVD box. Part of the reason is that the humor is balanced by pathos.

    The basic plot is that Will is a handsome, 36-year-old man who has plenty of money, no career, no ambitions and is never looking for a long term relationship. After deciding that single mothers are his best ticket, because they are so damaged that they don’t realize what a jerk he is; Will becomes involved in the life of Marcus, a 12-year-old, whose aging, suicidal, hippie mother keeps him tied so closely to her that ever the other social outcasts at school don’t like him.

    Gradually Marcus learns to build an exterior wall of cool around himself like Will has, in order to begin to fit in. Will learns from Marcus how to finally crack that exterior of cool to let someone in.

    I don’t usually like to compare movies to the books they are based on, because the comparison is unfair. I will say for the first two-thirds of the movie, it adheres closely to the plot of the book. But in the final third it veers away from the book into its own more upbeat ending.

    The problem with the movie is the big climatic scene. The reason I have a problem with it, is because it ignores the first two thirds of the movie. Marcus suddenly has to shift back to being the kid he was at the beginning of the movie and at the end of the scene have the world greatest therapeutic break through right on stage.

    All in all, I did really enjoy this movie, because of Hugh Grant’s portrayal of an adult who is dragged kicking and screaming into finally acting like an adult. By the end he learns to breakdown that adolescent wall of cool in order to gain the deeper joys of a real relationship.

    The parallel story of Marcus is also interesting, if less successful. It is saved by Nicholas Hoult’s surprisingly good acting job. It is he who manages to set the tone of the movie and leads the way for Grant’s character to explore deeper territory than his roles usually allow.


  • Well, I'm not going to give you any money and nobody else is.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Point Blank  (1967)

    Payback  (1999)

     

    If you have cable television you've probably seen Point Blank's poor man cousin, Payback, starring Mel Gibson. The Mel Gibson version isn't quite a remake, but both come from the same source, a pulp novel “The Hunter.” If you’ve only seen, Payback you should try to see Point Blank.

    First off, it stars Lee Marvin. Right after Steve McQueen, Marvin defines cool. And he doesn’t let down here. He plays Walker, a crook, who is robbing mobsters at a money drop-off point with his wife and his close friend. When the crime is done, his friend, Mal, and wife double cross him and leave him for dead.

    A year later, a crooked cop lets the now recovered Walker know that his friend used all the money to repay the crime syndicate what he owed them and where he is staying with Walker’s wife. Walker tracks down his wife, who tells him that Mal left her a long time ago. Later that night she overdoses on sleeping pills. Walker beats the next connection to Mal from a mob courier who is delivering his wife’s monthly package. Walker, with the occasional aid of the cop, works his way up the organization trying to get his money back.

    John Boorman directed this movie and it has all his brilliant touches that elevate this above just a standard crime melodrama. He uses flash backs in a way to show what walker remembers is fuzzy and sometime Walker is confused about what is really happening to him and what he is remembering.

    Boorman fills the screen with titillating semi erotic imagery. Walker’s dead wife posed in the bed with her legs and behind exposed suggestively. A salesman flirts with a woman customer while stroking her dog. Mal’s undressing a woman slowly before Walker attacks him.

    All of these erotic touches server to illustration how unavailable these people are to each other emotionally. The wide screen cinematography also serves this purpose. Boorman frequently puts columns, doorways and other spaces between characters when they are talking. The only close contact these people have with each other is usually in violent outbursts.

    Point Blank is filled with a great cast. Angie Dickenson as Walker’s lover. Carroll O’Connor as the number two man in the crime organization. John Vernon plays Mal as the sleazy friend. Michael Strong (known more for his TV work) plays the weasely Stegman perfectly.

    There is a lot going on in this movie and it deserves repeated viewing.

     


  • Sometimes the spaghetti likes to be alone

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Big Night  (1996)

     

    Big Night is one of the great movies about food and family. Two brothers have moved from Italy to Atlantic City in the 1950s to open the restaurant they have always dreamed of. Unfortunately for them, they are having a hard time finding people to share their dreams. The answer: to throw a party for everyone they know to show off how to make dreams a reality.

    This movie is funny and sensual. It is touching and angry. It talks about art and bankruptcy in both the moral and financial sense.

    The older brother Primo, is the genius chef. He knows and can explain precisely why some foods go with each other and they some should never be out together. His food is high art and needs people to appreciate his art. His brother, Secondo, understands his genius and is left with the unenviable job of translating his genius to the few customers who come in the door who want spaghetti and meatballs.

    While Primo lives in his idealistic world, Secondo lives in the here and now. His mentor runs the successful restaurant across the street. That restaurant aims for the lowest common denominator. The owner put on a show for all his customers. The food is all very basic, very simple; requiring no effort or appreciation for the chefs or the customers.

    Secondo confides to his mentor and competitor that the bank won’t lend them anymore money. He is frustrated that he cannot bridge the gap between his brother’s artistic success and his friend’s financial success. The answer is proposed that his mentor will invite Jazz legend Louis Prima to Primo and Secondo’s restaurant. They will throw a big party for him, invite everyone they know and the local press. They can then build off the notice that the visit will bring and voila, they will have their successful restaurant.

    His brother Primo, while supremely confident in his artistic powers, is extremely self confident in his lack of ability to communicate to others without his brother. He thinks he is in love with the woman who sells the restaurant flowers, but cannot work up the courage to ask her out on a date. Even with his friends in the neighboring barber shop, he can’t discuss his fears and frustrations. His only source of communication is through food.

    Primo manages to work up the courage to invite the local flower seller. Secondo invites his fiancée, his mistress (and wife of his mentor), along with everyone else they can think of.

    The feast they create takes all of the money they have left in the bank. In the kitchen, they speak to each other in the language of food and they begin to share that language with those that they love. The feast they produce will make you hunger for Italian specialties you’ve never dreamed of and suspect you will never find.

    The party goes from loud raucous fun to moments of quiet magic; from shared communal joy to individual anger and pity. It has everything you want in a party.

    Every character, major and minor, is a fully fleshed out individual, not a shorthand or stereotype. This movie shows the transformative power of high art. Art, not only as a movie, not only as a feast, but as how life should be lived.


  • Strange, Disturbing and Provocative

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Sebastiane  (1976)

    Jarhead  (2005)

    Sebastiane isn't for everyone. It is Derek Jarman's first fima and extremely experimental. The only spoken language is Latin. It is a serious movie about homosexuality made, at a time when the serious looks at the subject was taboo on the screen. It the nature of desire and the force of conformity.

    Sebastiane is a Christian soldier in the Roman army. He is part of  group of soldiers who are sent to a fort at the extreme edge of the empire. While there, his superior officer becomes in fatuated with him. Sebastiane continues to refuse the sexual advances of the centurion, even when threatened by death.

    This movie runs at a very languid pace. This is not an action movie. There are no battles. Like Jarhead, this movie explores what happens when soldiers are faced with their greatest threat: Boredom. It also looks at what happens when one person stands with his convictions in opposition to the group of which he is a member.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement